THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGIONAL WORKSHOP ON
ASSOCIATIVE CULTURAL LANDSCAPES
A REPORT BY AUSTRALIA ICOMOS
TO THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE
"Where the physical and spiritual unite"
Carmen Añon Feliu
SYDNEY OPERA HOUSE
AND JENOLAN CAVES, BLUE MOUNTAINS
NEW SOUTH WALES, AUSTRALIA
27-29 APRIL 1995
ICOMOS / WORLD HERITAGE
CONTENTS
1. Summary and Recommendations
2. Introduction
Opening session - a celebration
Working sessions - understanding
3. Defining associative cultural landscapes
4. Evaluating associative cultural landscapes
Criteria
Authenticity and Integrity
Boundaries
5. Managing associative cultural landscapes
Management
Monitoring
6. Community involvement
7. Testing the workshop outcomes
8. Implications for the Asia-Pacific region
Annexes
A. List of participants
B. Workshop programs
C. Summaries of papers presented
1. Summary and Recommendations
The adoption of the concept of cultural landscapes by the World Heritage
Committee at its sixteenth session in 1992 made the World Heritage
Convention more applicable to a wider international audience. More
specifically, in the Asia-Pacific region, the Convention's potential
application was extended, both culturally and geographically, by the
inclusion of this category of heritage. These developments are
recognised as having the potential to broaden the representativeness of
the World Heritage List.
The Asia-Pacific Regional Workshop on Associative Cultural Landscapes
held in Australia in April 1995 endorsed the findings of two recent
UNESCO/ICOMOS meetings - the June 1994 Expert Meeting on the Global
Strategy and Thematic Studies for a representative World Heritage List
and the November 1994 Nara Expert Workshop on Authenticity. These
workshops recognised that the consideration of properties of outstanding
universal value needs to be contextual (recognising a place in its
broader intellectual and physical context) rather than specific (as in
the limited approach to viewing heritage solely as monuments or
wilderness). The incorporation of the cultural landscape concept in the
Operational Guidelines is a positive move in this direction. A cultural
landscape, in reflecting the interactions of people and their
environment, is defined by its cultural and natural elements which may be
inseparable.
The Workshop further endorsed the Global Strategy and the Nara Document
on Authenticity as being particularly apt for the Asia-Pacific region
because of the continuity of living traditions in relation to land and
water within this region. The Global Strategy and the December 1993
Action Plan for the Future (Cultural Landscapes) emphasised the need for
regional workshops and educational programs to increase awareness of
cultural landscapes among States Parties. To allow such programs to
take place the Workshop recommended that an extension of time be granted
to States Parties to incorporate cultural landscapes in their tentative
lists (see the Action Plan for the Future (Cultural Landscapes) ).
The World Heritage Committee at its sixteenth session in December 1992
revised the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World
Heritage Convention to allow for the inclusion of cultural landscapes on
the World Heritage List. The Operational Guidelines identify
associative cultural landscapes as one of the categories of cultural
landscapes. Paragraph 39 (iii) of the Guidelines states:
The inclusion of such landscapes on the World Heritage List is
justifiable by virtue of the powerful religious, artistic or
cultural associations of the natural element rather than material
cultural evidence which may be insignificant or even absent.
The Asia-Pacific Regional Workshop on Associative Cultural Landscapes
examined the definition, evaluation, management and monitoring of
associative cultural landscapes with particular reference to the Asia-
Pacific region.
The associative cultural landscape category has particular relevance to
the Asia-Pacific region where the link between the physical and spiritual
aspects of landscape is so important. This is especially so given the
nature of cultural practices of indigenous peoples and of long-standing
migration patterns through Asia to Australia and across the Pacific
Ocean.
The Workshop celebrated the importance and recognition of associative
cultural landscapes, exemplified by Tongariro National Park in New
Zealand and Uluru Kata-Tjuta National Park in Australia. These two
properties have recently been included on the World Heritage List for
their associative cultural values, complementing their earlier World
Heritage listing for their natural values.
Papers and discussions at the Workshop focussed on the cultural,
spiritual and inspirational values of associative cultural landscapes
from the perspectives of artists, anthropologists, archaeologists,
historians, landscape architects, planners and traditional custodians.
Associative cultural landscapes may be defined as large or small
contiguous or non-contiguous areas and itineraries, routes or other
linear landscapes - these may be physical entities or mental images
embedded in a people's spirituality, cultural tradition and practice.
The attributes of associative cultural landscapes include the intangible,
such as the acoustic, the kinetic and the olfactory, as well as the
visual.
The Workshop participants considered that in the evaluation of any
associative cultural landscape for World Heritage listing, the cultural
and natural criteria and conditions of authenticity, integrity and
management requirements in Paragraphs 24 and 44 of the Operational
Guidelines should be considered comprehensively.
Clarification of certain terms in the Operational Guidelines for the
Implementation of the World Heritage Convention, with particular
reference to Paragraph 39 (iii), was suggested as follows:
"Artistic" encompasses all forms of artistic expression including
"literary";
"Cultural" includes associations with historic events and with
traditions of indigenous and non-indigenous cultures;
"Landscape" includes seascapes. In discussing seascapes it was
noted that the ICOMOS International Scientific Committee on
Underwater Cultural Heritage examines marine environments in terms
of shipwrecks and other material evidence and that a useful
addition to its work would be the consideration of the associative
values linked to the marine environment.
The Workshop recommended that in applying cultural criterion (vi), a
broader rather than a narrower interpretation be used, and that in
particular oral traditions should not be excluded.
While the Workshop participants agreed that Paragraph 24 (b) (i) of the
Operational Guidelines is relevant to associative cultural landscapes,
they considered that for regional applications the definition of
authenticity needed to clarify the interactions between culture and the
natural environment.
The Workshop endorsed the management requirements set out under
Paragraphs 24 (b) (ii) and 44 (b) (v) of the Operational Guidelines,
including those related to integrity and control of visitation to the
property nominated. Paragraph 14 of the Operational Guidelines was
perceived to be somewhat ambiguous in intent, offering some potential for
secrecy and conflict rather than the open process considered desirable.
Linkages between the evaluation and management of associative cultural
landscapes need to be recognised. Close involvement of traditional
custodians, as in the case of Tongariro National Park in New Zealand and
Uluru Kata-Tjuta National Park in Australia should be a prerequisite in
the assessment of appropriate management regimes for such landscapes.
The Workshop noted the need for an integrated approach to the evaluation
of associative cultural landscapes, combining the skills and expertise of
natural and cultural heritage experts. ICOMOS should continue to be the
lead agency for the evaluation of cultural landscapes but, where
appropriate, the evaluation of all categories of landscape should be
undertaken jointly by ICOMOS and IUCN to link their areas of expertise.
The Workshop participants considered community involvement and
participation to be an important part of the identification, management
and monitoring of associative cultural landscapes for World Heritage
listing.
The Workshop endorsed the efforts of the World Heritage Committee to
establish effective monitoring systems and to consider a cooperative
regional approach to monitoring.
2. Introduction
The World Heritage Committee at its sixteenth session in December 1992
revised the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World
Heritage Convention to allow for the inclusion of cultural landscapes on
the World Heritage List.
The Operational Guidelines identify associative cultural landscapes as
one of the categories of cultural landscapes. Paragraph 39 (iii) of the
Guidelines states:
The inclusion of such landscapes on the World Heritage List is
justifiable by virtue of the powerful religious, artistic or
cultural associations of the natural element rather than material
cultural evidence which may be insignificant or even absent.
The December 1993 Action Plan for the Future (Cultural Landscapes)
recommended a regional approach to the study of such landscapes. At its
seventeenth and eighteenth sessions respectively, the World Heritage
Committee listed Tongariro National Park in New Zealand and Uluru Kata-
Tjuta National Park in Australia as associative cultural landscapes. In
addition to these developments, a need was perceived to consider in more
detail the definition of associative cultural landscapes, their
evaluation, management and monitoring.
In response, Australia ICOMOS offered to organise a regional expert
workshop on the World Heritage Convention and Associative Cultural
Landscapes. This would follow, almost immediately, the expert regional
thematic study meeting on the Asian Rice Culture and its Terraced
Landscapes held in the Philippines.
The Australian Workshop comprised an opening, celebratory session at the
Sydney Opera House on 27 April 1995. Papers delivered to the opening
session at the Sydney Opera House focussed on the cultural, spiritual and
inspirational values of landscapes from the perspectives of artists,
anthropologists, archaeologists, historians and traditional custodians.
[See attached program at Annex B and summary of papers at Annex C]. The
opening session was followed by expert working sessions on associative
cultural landscapes at Jenolan Caves in the Blue Mountains region of New
South Wales from 28 to 29 April 1995.
The ICOMOS Workshop was sponsored by the World Heritage Branch of the
Australian Commonwealth Department of the Environment, Sport and
Territories and the Australian National Commission for UNESCO.
Three preparatory meetings were held in Australia in 1994 and 1995. At
the first, held at the Australian Academy of the Humanities, Canberra, it
was decided to explore associative cultural landscapes as traditional
indigenous cultural landscapes (expressed, for example in traditional
indigenous cultural and spiritual landscapes) and secondly, as
inspirational landscapes (expressed, for example, in the creative works
of poets, artists, writers etc.).
The second preparatory meeting, on Indigenous Cultural Landscapes and
World Heritage Listing, was sponsored by the Australian Heritage
Commission. It brought together work in progress on Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander traditional cultural landscapes related to
Australia's Register of the National Estate. Many of the issues
identified at this meeting were also relevant to the inclusion of
associative cultural landscapes in the World Heritage List.
The third meeting, related to artistic associations, was convened by the
Historic Houses Trust of New South Wales to identify relevant artists and
experts to examine the inspirational aspects of associative cultural
landscapes.
Summarised results of the Asia-Pacific Regional Workshop on Associative
Cultural Landscapes are here presented to the World Heritage Committee
for its consideration, together with brief background notes on the papers
and preliminary meetings. A full report of the events will be published
in due course for dissemination among conservation practitioners and
other interested parties.
Opening session - a celebration
The opening of the Workshop at the Sydney Opera House celebrated the
recognition of associative cultural landscapes on the World Heritage
List through the recent listing of Tongariro National Park in New Zealand
and Uluru Kata-Tjuta National Park in Australia as cultural landscapes to
complement their earlier inclusion as natural properties. The
traditional custodians of Tongariro were represented at the workshop by
Mr Tumu Te Heuheu and those of Uluru Kata-Tjuta were represented by Mr
Yami Lester, Chair of Uluru's Board of Management.
The celebration was enhanced by the presentation by the Director-General
of the UNESCO Picasso Gold Medal to the Uluru Kata-Tjuta Board of
Management. This Board includes representatives of the traditional
Aboriginal custodians of Uluru Kata-Tjuta and of the Australian Nature
Conservation Agency. The traditional owners have majority
representation on the Board of Management.
The award of the UNESCO Picasso Gold Medal to the Uluru Kata-Tjuta Board
of Management was a clear demonstration of the international recognition
of associative cultural landscapes as an important category of heritage
environment and of the value of traditional management practices in
caring for them.
In his opening address to the Workshop, the Director-General of UNESCO,
Dr Federico Mayor, stressed that "man and nature are indeed inseparable"
and pointed to the all-encompassing features of the World Heritage
Convention. For too long in international fora the environment has been
compartmentalised into the "natural" and the "cultural". In the Asia-
Pacific region there has sometimes been a further division between
indigenous and non-indigenous cultural environments. There is a growing
recognition that these distinctions are artificial and there is a need
for a more integrated approach as reflected in the cultural landscape
concept.
The recognition of associative cultural landscapes is particularly
relevant to the Asia-Pacific region where a diversity of traditional
cultures both depend on and have influenced the landscape for their
corporal and spiritual well being.
Working sessions - understanding
Some thirty of the experts present at the Opera House travelled to the
Jenolan Caves, a world-famous karst site in the Blue Mountains to the
west of Sydney, for further workshop sessions on the World Heritage
Convention and associative cultural landscapes. Regional participants
came from Fiji/Tonga, The Philippines, Taiwan, New Zealand and Australia.
Representing ICOMOS, Carmen Añon Feliu, a Spanish specialist in cultural
landscapes, stressed the need for recognition of the link between the
physical and spiritual aspects of landscapes.
Bing Lucas, representing the International Union for the Conservation of
Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN), outlined the evolution of the
concept of World Heritage cultural landscapes. Augusto Villalon brought
from the Philippines the experience of the recent and related expert
workshop on rice terraces as organically evolved cultural landscapes.
Participants discussed definitions, evaluation, management and
monitoring, with particular emphasis on associative cultural landscapes
in the Asia-Pacific region. Outcomes of the Workshop were discussed in
relation to a traditional cultural landscape and an inspirational
landscape to gauge the relevance of the cultural and natural criteria and
the conditions of authenticity, integrity and management requirements in
the Operational Guidelines to each case.
3. Defining associative cultural landscapes
In discussing the definition of associative cultural landscapes within
the Operational Guidelines, and the range of types of landscapes implied
within it, the Workshop considered it useful to suggest the amplification
or qualification of specific terms included in Paragraph 39 (iii) of the
Guidelines .
These suggestions were as follows:
The term "artistic" in Paragraph 39 (iii) of the Guidelines encompasses
all forms of artistic expression, including "literary".
The term "cultural" in Paragraph 39 (iii) includes associations with
historic events and with traditions of indigenous and non-indigenous
cultures.
The term "landscape" in Paragraph 39 (iii) includes seascapes, so
important to island and maritime people and environments. An example
cited is the fisheries culture of the indigenous inhabitants of Taiwan's
offshore islands. It was noted that the ICOMOS International Scientific
Committee on Underwater Cultural Heritage examines marine environments in
terms of shipwrecks and other material evidence and that a useful
addition to its work would be the consideration of the associative values
linked to the marine environment.
The Workshop discussed traditional or indigenous, and inspirational or
artistic associative cultural landscapes.
Associative cultural landscapes may include large or small contiguous or
non-contiguous areas and itineraries, routes or other linear landscapes -
these may be physical entities or mental images embedded in a people's
spirituality, cultural tradition and practice. Examples important to
the Asia-Pacific region include Aboriginal dreaming tracks in Australia,
the spread of Polynesian culture across the Pacific Ocean and the Silk
Road from China to the West. Another example would be slave routes such
as those by which indentured labourers were brought from the Pacific
Islands to Queensland in Australia to work in the sugar industry.
The Workshop agreed that the attributes of associative cultural
landscapes also include the intangible, such as the acoustic, kinetic
(eg. air movements) and olfactory, as well as the visual (eg. patterns of
light, colours and shapes in the landscape). The acoustic dimension is
vital to many cultures, for example those in Papua New Guinea which are
tuned to the songs of birds or the sounds of waterfalls.
It was pointed out that in Pacific and other cultures in this region,
some landscapes have been created by women or carry "religious, artistic
or cultural" traditions specific to women rather than men. Therefore,
in identifying associative cultural landscapes, gender should be taken
into account.
In this region it is vital to recognise that geographical features may
have cultural significance without there being any visible archaeological
evidence (see Paragraph 39 (iii) of the Operational Guidelines). In the
absence of cultural fabric, the evidence may exist through words (eg.
poetry, songs), photography or paintings - "the landscapes of memory".
Inspirational landscapes may become familiar to people through their
depiction in paintings such as those of the strong nineteenth century
landscape tradition in Australia exemplified by the works of Conrad
Martens which had their European counterparts in the paintings of artists
such as Turner.
Sydney Harbour has inspired not only local artists from the early
colonial Port Jackson painters to the recent creations of Lloyd Rees,
Brett Whiteley and Ken Done, but also the designers of the Harbour Bridge
and the Sydney Opera House. These latter tangible inspirational
responses have added to the cumulative mix of cultural and natural
features in the landscape which, in turn, inspire new associative
responses.
The inspirational photographs of Tasmania's Franklin River by Olegas
Truchanas, Peter Dombrovskis and others have become a symbol for the
wilderness movement in Australia just as Ansell Adams' evocative
photographs of the landform Half Dome in America's Yosemite National Park
have become a symbol for the wilderness movement in the United States.
4. Evaluating associative cultural landscapes
The Workshop endorsed the findings of two recent UNESCO/ICOMOS meetings -
the June 1994 Expert Meeting on the Global Strategy and the November 1994
Nara Expert Workshop on Authenticity. These workshops recognised that
the consideration of properties of outstanding universal value needs to
be contextual (recognising a place in its broader intellectual and
physical context) rather than specific (as in the limited approach to
viewing heritage solely as monuments or wilderness). The incorporation
of the cultural landscape concept in the Operational Guidelines is a
positive move in this direction. A cultural landscape, in reflecting the
interactions of people and their environment, is defined by its cultural
and natural elements which may be inseparable.
The Workshop recommended that:
The Workshop noted the need for an integrated approach to the evaluation
of associative cultural landscapes, combining the skills and expertise of
natural and cultural heritage experts. ICOMOS should continue to be the
lead agency for the evaluation of cultural landscapes but, where
appropriate, the evaluation of all categories of landscape should be
undertaken jointly by ICOMOS and IUCN to link their areas of expertise.
On the question of evaluation the workshop participants addressed the
following questions:
Which of the natural and cultural criteria in the Operational
Guidelines are relevant to associative landscapes?
What constitutes the authenticity, both in character and
components, and integrity required by the Operational Guidelines in
relation to associative cultural landscapes?
How should boundaries of associative cultural landscapes be
determined in relation to both functionality and intelligibility,
as required by the Operational Guidelines?
Criteria
The Workshop recommended that, in evaluating any associative cultural
landscape for World Heritage listing the criteria in Paragraphs 24 and 44
of the Operational Guidelines be considered comprehensively. Tongariro
National Park and Uluru Kata-Tjuta National Park, the two places in this
region now listed as associative cultural landscapes, were found to meet
both cultural and natural criteria.
Cultural criteria in Paragraph 24 (a) of the Operational Guidelines,
relating to "unique or exceptional testimony to a cultural tradition or
to a civilisation" (cultural criterion iii) and "associated with ...
artistic and literary works of outstanding universal significance"
(cultural criterion vi) were clearly applicable to associative cultural
landscapes. It was noted that cultural criterion (vi), according to the
Guidelines should not be used in isolation except "in exceptional
circumstances or in conjunction with other criteria, cultural or
natural".
Cultural criterion (iv) dealing with "landscape which illustrates
significant stages in human history" and (v) relating to "an outstanding
example of a traditional land-use which is representative of a culture
(or cultures), especially when it has become vulnerable under the impact
of irreversible change", may also apply to associative cultural
landscapes.
The Workshop recommended that in applying cultural criterion (vi) a
broader rather than a narrower interpretation be used, and that in
particular, oral traditions not be excluded.
The Workshop considered that the natural criterion defined in Paragraph
44 (a) (iii) may be relevant for an associative cultural landscape. The
criterion highlights "superlative natural phenomena", "areas of
exceptional natural beauty" and "areas of exceptional aesthetic
importance". It is important that any nomination for World Heritage
listing clearly specify how and why the landscape is seen as having these
qualities, which may well be by cultural association.
There are management implications arising from the specific criteria used
to evaluate associative cultural landscapes. The criteria in Paragraphs
44 (a) (ii) and (iv) for evaluating natural properties for World Heritage
listing may, for the purposes of integrity, require the maintenance of
biological diversity. While changes to Paragraph 38 have emphasised the
potential for traditional cultural practices to assist the maintenance of
biological diversity, management problems may arise if traditional land-
use practices are seen to conflict with other nature conservation
strategies.
The Workshop, noting that communities which are stakeholders in
properties of World Heritage significance may not always be aware of the
criteria and the listing process, supported the requirement for
educational programs and full consultation with all communities which are
culturally associated with the properties. It is recognised that in
some instances cross-cultural differences may lead to conflicts
concerning evaluation, listing and management of properties.
Authenticity and Integrity
The Workshop endorsed the wording of Paragraph 11 of the November 1994
Nara Document on Authenticity which states that :
All judgements about values attributed to cultural properties as
well as the credibility of related information sources may differ
from culture to culture, and even within the same culture. It is
thus not possible to base judgements of value and authenticity on
fixed criteria. On the contrary, the respect due to all cultures
requires that heritage properties must be considered and judged
within the cultural contexts to which they belong.
While the Workshop participants agreed that Paragraph 24 (b) (i) of the
Operational Guidelines is relevant to associative cultural landscapes,
they considered that for regional applications the definition of
authenticity needed to clarify the interactions between culture and the
natural environment.
Authenticity, related to the criteria for which a place was nominated,
should encompass the continuation of cultural practices which maintain
the place. This authenticity, however, must not exclude cultural
continuity through change, which may introduce new ways of relating to
and caring for the place.
Because of the particular characteristics of associative cultural
landscapes, authenticity may not refer to the maintenance of the fabric
of a place, or its reconstruction to an earlier or original
configuration. Instead, authenticity may mean the maintenance of a
continuing association between the people and the place, however it may
be expressed through time. This may on occasion necessitate the need
for acceptance of some change to the landscape as well as a change in
attitude to it.
The Workshop accepted the need to fulfil the conditions of integrity set
out under Paragraph 44 (b) of the Operational Guidelines. It would seem
that Paragraph 44 (b) (iii) may most often be relevant, through its
reference to sites of 'outstanding aesthetic value".
An example discussed in regard to authenticity and integrity was Mount
Fuji in Japan. In addition to its natural values, Mount Fuji has
undoubted spiritual, artistic and inspirational values. However, a
range of landuses, protective mechanisms and management regimes for the
surrounding areas have affected integrity and made boundary determination
difficult.
Boundaries
World Heritage listing requires determination of property boundaries with
reference to a clearly defined geocultural region and the capacity to
illustrate the essential and distinct cultural and natural elements of
such regions or cultures.
The Workshop found that it can be difficult to specify boundaries for
associative cultural landscapes because of the difficulties in
quantifying the values and in delineating where they are expressed.
However, it found that boundaries could be sought for each defined value
and that the overall boundary incorporating all values could be presented
by maps based on overlays for each.
For traditional indigenous associative cultural landscapes, it is
necessary to define boundaries with reference, for example, to
spirituality, cultural tradition and practice, language, kinship and
social relationships and/or the interactions (including use and care of
plant and animal species) that exist between people and their natural
environment.
The boundary requirements for properties with natural values set out in
Paragraphs 44 (b) were seen to be relevant for associative cultural
landscapes where the nomination depended on any of the criteria in
Paragraph 44 (a).
5. Managing associative cultural landscapes
Management
The Workshop endorsed the management requirements set out under
Paragraphs 24 (b) (ii) and 44 (b) (v) of the Operational Guidelines,
including those related to integrity and control of visitation to the
property nominated. Paragraph 14 of the Operational Guidelines was
perceived to be somewhat ambiguous in intent, offering some potential for
secrecy and conflict rather than the open process considered desirable.
Paragraph 24 (b) (ii) of the Operational Guidelines regarding the
adequacy of legal and/or traditional protection and management mechanisms
applies to associative cultural landscapes. Paragraph 24 (b) (ii)
appears to presuppose the arrest of change whereas what will often be
needed is a mechanism to manage change appropriately. A management
plan, or other conservation arrangement, should provide people with the
framework and mechanisms to manage change, whilst conserving the stated
values of the property.
Linkages between the evaluation and management of associative cultural
landscapes need to be recognised. Close involvement of traditional
custodians, as in the case of Tongariro National Park in New Zealand and
Uluru Kata-Tjuta National Park in Australia should be a prerequisite in
the assessment of appropriate management regimes for such landscapes.
With reference to the management of associative cultural landscapes, it
should be recognised that indigenous peoples make an important and
ongoing contribution to the maintenance and care of the values of the
place.
The Workshop recommended that:
Interpretation programs for World Heritage associative cultural
landscapes need to promote the traditional and/or inspirational values
for which the places were nominated. For traditional indigenous
landscapes, this interpretation program should be developed in
consultation with, and with the agreement of, the appropriate traditional
owners/custodians.
Education programs and information services need to be made available to
State Party governments and the general public to encourage a greater
feeling of ownership and respect for World Heritage properties.
Monitoring
Inspirational places such as artistic associative cultural landscapes are
particularly difficult to monitor due to the lack of an effective gauge.
One measure of success is whether or not the values for which the
landscape was noted are still appreciated by the community and respected
by visitors. Another measure of success is whether or not the place
itself continues to inspire creative works.
With reference to the monitoring of traditional cultural landscapes, the
need to involve indigenous peoples must be recognised.
There is a need to protect all associative cultural landscapes, not only
from neglect but also from the excesses of presentation and visitor
overuse. The impact of heritage management regimes must therefore be
monitored regularly, and appropriately controlled.
The Workshop accordingly endorsed the efforts of the World Heritage
Committee to establish effective monitoring systems and to consider a
cooperative regional approach to monitoring.
6. Community involvement
The Workshop participants considered community involvement and
participation to be an important part of the identification, management
and monitoring of associative cultural landscapes for World Heritage
listing.
7. Testing the workshop outcomes
To test the outcomes of the Workshop, and particularly the relevance of
the criteria in the Operational Guidelines to the inclusion of
associative cultural landscapes in the World Heritage List, two
associative cultural landscapes of World Heritage potential were
discussed. One of the landscapes chosen had cultural associations to
indigenous peoples, and the other, artistic associations. A simple
testing methodology involving the consideration of the following
questions in relation to each of the cultural landscapes was used:
Does the property fit the definition of associative cultural landscape in
the Operational Guidelines?
If so, which criteria does it satisfy?
Does it satisfy the requirements concerning authenticity and integrity?
Does the associative cultural landscape have adequate management
arrangements in place?
Is it of outstanding universal value?
How would you identify the boundaries?
The example of the indigenous cultural landscape was found to satisfy a
range of both natural and cultural criteria. The example of the
inspirational landscape met several cultural criteria and possibly some
natural criteria. Boundary definition for both examples was not possible
given the constraints of information available to Workshop participants.
Nonetheless, the exercise served to confirm the Workshop findings on
definitions, evaluation and management.
8. Implications for the Asia-Pacific region
The adoption of the concept of cultural landscapes by the World Heritage
Committee at its sixteenth session in 1992 made the World Heritage
Convention more applicable to a wider international audience. More
specifically, in the Asia-Pacific region, the Convention's potential
application was extended, both culturally and geographically, by the
inclusion of this category of heritage. These developments are
recognised as having the potential to broaden the representativeness of
the World Heritage List.
The Asia-Pacific Regional Workshop on Associative Cultural Landscapes
held in Australia in April 1995 endorsed the findings of two recent
UNESCO/ICOMOS meetings - the June 1994 Expert Meeting on the Global
Strategy and Thematic Studies for a representative World Heritage List
and the November 1994 Nara Expert Workshop on Authenticity. These
workshops recognised that the consideration of properties of outstanding
universal value needs to be contextual (recognising a place in its
broader intellectual and physical context) rather than specific (as in
the limited approach to viewing heritage solely as monuments or
wilderness). The incorporation of the cultural landscape concept in the
Operational Guidelines is a positive move in this direction. A cultural
landscape, in reflecting the interactions of people and their
environment, is defined by its cultural and natural elements which may be
inseparable.
The Workshop further endorsed the Global Strategy and the Nara Document
on Authenticity as being particularly apt for the Asia-Pacific region
because of the continuity of living traditions in relation to land and
water within this region. The Global Strategy and the December 1993
Action Plan for the Future (Cultural Landscapes) emphasised the need for
regional workshops and educational programs to increase awareness of
cultural landscapes among States Parties. To allow such programs to
take place the Workshop recommended that an extension of time be granted
to States Parties to incorporate cultural landscapes in their tentative
lists (see the Action Plan for the Future (Cultural Landscapes) ).
In this vital United Nations Year of Tolerance, in culturally diverse
areas such as the Asia-Pacific region, it is important to encourage
people to share what can be shared of their values, traditions and
places; to care for that which cannot be shared; and to respect places
reflecting different values and practices from their own. World
Heritage listing of associative cultural landscapes and their ongoing
management should reflect these values.
Annex C
Summaries of papers presented
Opening session - Sydney Opera House, 27 April 1995
Welcome to participants
John Langmore MP, representing the Prime Minister of Australia and the
Minister for the Environment, Sport and Territories
In welcoming delegates to the Workshop Mr Langmore stressed the need for
recognition of the combined works of people and nature. He referred to
the latest version of the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation
of the World Heritage Convention which now recognises associative
cultural landscapes.
Mr Langmore highlighted the fact that Uluru Kata-Tjuta National Park is
only the second associative cultural landscape in the world to be
included on the World Heritage List. He suggested that workshop
participants might consider nominating the central parts of Canberra for
World Heritage listing since, in his opinion, Australia's capital is "the
best planned modern city in the world".
Official opening
Federico Mayor, Director-General, UNESCO
Dr Mayor reported that 142 State Parties are now signatories to the World
Heritage Convention. Of the 440 sites on the World Heritage List, 88
are in the Asia-Pacific region, with 11 in Australia. He stressed the
need for a collective effort by the international community to promote
the concept of a shared human heritage which transcends national
boundaries.
Referring to the 1992 decision by the World Heritage Committee to accept
cultural landscapes for inclusion on the World Heritage List, Dr Mayor
said that it was hoped that the imbalance between the disproportionately
large number of European cultural heritage sites and the rest of the
world could be redressed.
Dr Mayor expressed the view that people and nature are inseparable. He
emphasised the role that nature plays in shaping the creative and
spiritual life of humans, but said that it is wrong to take the human
species out of the equation when considering ecosystems. He stressed
the need for interaction with those who are actually living in World
Heritage ecosystems.
Tongariro National Park, in the North Island of New Zealand, was the
first associative cultural landscape to be listed on the World Heritage
List, in 1993. Its natural features are closely related to the identity
of the Maori people.
Uluru Kata-Tjuta National Park in Australia has been recognised as an
associative cultural landscape because of the continuous
interrelationships between the traditional Aboriginal custodians and the
natural environment for more than 5000 years.
Dr Mayor advised Workshop participants that a proposal has been put to
the Executive Board of UNESCO for a Merlina Mercouri Memorial Prize for
the management of cultural landscapes. He stressed the need for
integration of conservation and sustainable development if we are to
protect the most important part of the biosphere - human beings - for our
children and their children. "Humans are the eyes of the universe", he
said, "our most important monument".
Overview of regional context
Joan Domicelj, ICOMOS Vice-President
In a paper titled "Diversity, Regionalism and Landscapes of Association"
Ms Domicelj stressed the need, in this vital United Nations Year of
Tolerance, and in culturally diverse areas such as the Asia-Pacific
region that:
"... we encourage people to share what can be shared of their values,
traditions and places; to care for what cannot be shared; and to
respect places reflecting different values and practices from their own."
Ms Domicelj endorsed UNESCO's strong moves towards regionalisation which,
she said, are well echoed amongst its friends and advisers - ICOMOS, IUCN
and ICCROM. ICOMOS, for example, now holds regional assemblies and
supports regional discussion of issues such as tentative lists, cultural
heritage at risk and the mutual monitoring of World Heritage listed
properties.
Recounting the tale of her recent visit to the 2000 year old Ifugaoan
high country stepped rice terraces in the Philippines, and sporting a
broken leg as proof, Ms Domicelj likened the series of regional meetings
and workshops to a celebratory feast in which the participants would
"celebrate the extraordinary range of human responses to landscapes - as
lovers, explorers, artists and, above all, as custodians". In the
Asia-Pacific region, she said, "the wisdom of indigenous cultures in
caring for the land is overwhelming."
Ms Domicelj outlined the proposed structure of the working sessions of
the Workshop and linked its objectives to the 1994 Global Strategy for a
representative World Heritage List and attempts to redress imbalances in
the present list under the theme of "Human Coexistence with the Land" - a
change of emphasis from monumentality to complexity and from single
places in isolation to places within their physical and cultural
contexts.
Cultural and spiritual associations of landscapes : Uluru
Yami Lester, Chair, Uluru Kata-Tjuta National Park Board of Management
Imagined landscapes: Aboriginal and archaeological perspectives
Professor Rhys Jones, Australian National University
Cultural and spiritual associations of landscapes: Tongariro
Tumu Te Heuheu, traditional custodian, Tongariro National Park, New
Zealand
Cultural landscapes and the World Heritage Convention: the Road to
Tongariro and Uluru Kata-Tjuta
PHC (Bing) Lucas, IUCN Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas,
New Zealand
Landscapes of Disappearance
Paul Carter, Australia Centre, University of Melbourne
Inspirational value of cultural landscapes
Ray Joyce, photographer, Tasmania
One of Australia's foremost photographers of historic buildings and
non-indigenous landscapes, Ray Joyce likened himself to a hunter,
stalking his prey in the dawn and the dusk. His presentation of 120
colour transparencies chosen at random from his vast collection of images
emphasised the importance of light and its changing qualities with the
seasons and the time of day. By its nature photography is subjective
and while the photographer argued that his images were individually
insignificant, as a collection of work they reflect the inspirational
value of cultural landscapes. A recurring theme in Ray's photographs is
what he terms "the singing line", the boundary between the land and the
water. The photographer's fascination with this subject was a major
factor in his recent decision to relocate his place of residence to a
farmhouse beside a river in rural Tasmania.
Inspirational value of cultural landscapes
Janet Laurence, sculptor, Sydney
Working sessions - Jenolan Caves, 28-29 April 1995
Cultural landscapes and the Operational Guidelines
Sarah Titchen, Australian National University
Sarah Titchen presented a brief outline of the background and historical
context to the inclusion of cultural landscape categories in the
Operational Guidelines and the concomitant revisions to the cultural and
natural criteria.
It was noted that the December 1992 revisions to natural heritage
criteria (ii) and (iii) have removed references to people and their
interactions with the natural environment, and to exceptional
combinations of natural and cultural elements of the environment. The
recognition of such interactions and combinations through World Heritage
listing must now be achieved through application of the cultural
landscape categories.
The Philippines Workshop
Augusto Villalon, ICOMOS, The Philippines
Application of evaluation issues to date: Uluru Kata-Tjuta
Jon Willis, Uluru Kata-Tjuta National Park
Application of evaluation issues to date: Tongariro
PHC (Bing) Lucas, Senior Adviser, IUCN Commission on National Parks and
Protected Areas, Wellington, New Zealand
Management issues: Uluru Kata-Tjuta
Hilary Sullivan, Australian Nature Conservation Agency
Community involvement
Rosemary Purdie, Willandra Lakes World Heritage Area Community Liaison
Committee